If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Why "Sarah's Law" is a stupid idea
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Pedo beaten to death
What this man did was obviously wrong, but he was convicted for making pictures and for gross indecency. He wasnt convicted for indecent assault or rape, he was convicted for taking pictures. A horrible crime, but only a "medium" crime, all things considered.
So someone decided that he deserved to be brutally murdered because of it.
That is why naming and shaming paedophiles is such a bad idea, he hurt someone but he didnt hurt them seriously and he didnt kill anyone. But vigilantes, which seems a likely class of murderer, thought that he deserved to die for it, and because he was on the register, probably leaked by a copper, he was murdered.
Can anyone possibly justify this?
What this man did was obviously wrong, but he was convicted for making pictures and for gross indecency. He wasnt convicted for indecent assault or rape, he was convicted for taking pictures. A horrible crime, but only a "medium" crime, all things considered.
So someone decided that he deserved to be brutally murdered because of it.
That is why naming and shaming paedophiles is such a bad idea, he hurt someone but he didnt hurt them seriously and he didnt kill anyone. But vigilantes, which seems a likely class of murderer, thought that he deserved to die for it, and because he was on the register, probably leaked by a copper, he was murdered.
Can anyone possibly justify this?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I wont lose any sleep over a pedo being murdered its just a shame that its 74 year olds and not the Roy Whitings being murdered.
I dont want vigilante attacks on people but I also believe people should know if they are letting there child out to play and there is a convivted pedophile on the street.
very very tricky situation.
I think that in this case this guy was not thought to be a risk but their are plenty of others that are.
How would you feel Kermit if your son/daughter was preyed on by a pedo round the corner, I'd imagine you'd be fuming if the police told you they knew about this person but they couldn't warn you of the danger.
But even those who think he got what he deserved are missing the point. The implementation of a Sarah's Law would not protect children in anyway. It would only drive child molesters underground. Besides, all a child molester needs to do is travel 20/30 miles. It's no good knowing what the local paedo looks like.
But in any event, I like Kermit believe we are human not savages and we cannot administer vigilante justice at will- especially when the man had already served a sentence.
I suppose thats the whole problem with the issue though. Id want to know if a pedo lives next door, no-one would say that they wouldnt want to know, but its a very tricky balance and unfortunately the public evidently cannot be trusted with the information. Thats been shown now, and it was certainly shown in the aftermath of Wade's naming and shaming.
Ill ask your question another way- would you rather not know a pedo lived next door to you and have the police keep a very close eye on him or her, or would you rather have it so that pedos were named and shamed, making them leave their houses and come and live next door anyway, but without the police supervision?
Hard to call I guess because I'm thinking that I can be trusted not to go round and beat the crap out of a pedo neighbour but I suppose there are a lot of people that can't.
If the police did keep a close eye on all the sex offenders then I guess they wouldn't need to be named. The trouble is that if just one gets up to their old tricks then the authorities would get slaughtered for not telling people of their whereabouts.
Why not, his life isn't worth any less than yours - even if he has committed such a crime. He did his time, justice had been served.
But comments like yours are just a breeding ground for vigilante action. "I won't lose sleep" is just like suggesting that this "is fine with me".
There may be a convicted paedophile anywhere, and you can know about it. Great.
What about the one who has yet to be convicted, who will warn you about them?
Parents being told that a convicted paedophile is in the area is the worst thing that could happen, all sorts of innocent people could end up being murdered for nothing more than being a loner. I fear it would be used as an excuse for violence whether anyone thinks that someones dangerous or not.
If anything must be said it has to be name and shame.
In Portsmouth an unofficial and inaccurate list of paedo's was circulated which saw people having to leave their homes despite no evidence for fear of fire-bombings, this included a 17 year old lad going out with a 15 year old girl.
I'm sure you remember the story about the paediatrician in a Welsh estate who had her home attacked :eek2:
Unfortunately most children who are abused are done so by someone they know and trust not by being dragged off the streets by strangers. I wish I had an effective solution but I don't think its Sarah's Law.
yeah so did Roy Whiting after he had been released :rolleyes:
Id like to know if I had a peado as my nextdoor neighbour because as we all know i have a Daughter and i would then make sure I am more aware of what shes up too (not that i dont now like).
I think it was wrong that he was murdered but I also think sex offenders do not get a proper sentence when they have been convicted. I think the whole situation needs adressing. Like Kermit said this fella took pictures and gross indecency which when you look at it compared to rape it is a medium offence.
Now he was jailed for 12 months but how much time would he have actually served ? so I still think the length of time someone is sentence needs to be looked at and if they are given 1 yr, 2 yr, 3 yr or 20 years then they should serve their time and not get released early because they put on an act whilst in prison.
He's right you know. :yes:
Man on run raped two more women.
Now not actually about paedos, the moron who let this monster stay in an open prison should be sacked. I know you can only go on past behaviour, and everyone deserves a second chance, but it makes it very hard to argue anything other than "life means life" when vermin like this can get out and do it again. he was going to be let out anyway, how can you come to the end of a life sentence?
However, I don't know whether I believe in naming and shaming. Mainly because the wrong person might end up getting beaten up for bearing the same name, or for looking similar to a pedo in the paper.
Yes, i know that most are never caught. That can only be dealt with by educating children to protect themselves and setting up a system that will reach out to them.
I don't like vigilante justice either, but maybe for different reasons than you may have. I like the order of a trial by jury with objective people looking at the evidence and deciding guilt. Vigilantism bypasses that and can easily kill an innocent person.
If the laws are too lenient and criminals get away with a slap on the wrist, then change the laws. Do you all have the referendum? Here in Oregon (USA) we got tired of the criminals literally getting away with murder and violent criminals roaming unchecked because of lax laws and loopy judges. We got a referendum passed that mandated tough minimum sentences. Crime is down.
We all know that many sex offenders are repeat offenders, but why is this? The fear of jail most not be a deterant even with high jail times for the more serious offences.
As I have said before, sex offences should be treated as a mental health issue, NOT a criminal one. The person involved could be sent to a secure hospital for treatment and then released when they are deemed not to be a threat to society anymore. In this way we could try and understand why these people do the things that they do and prevent trouble in the future.
Sarahs law is totaly stupid, it is playing up to all the worst base instincts in society, we have the rule of law and justice should NEVER be in the hands of some stupid mob.
As for minimum sentancing, thats a tough one. I'm fairly certain that I'm against it, you are basicaly taking away any mitigating situations from the judgement which can lead to sentancing being wrong. In most cases a social/welfare angle on crime reduction works much better than just putting more people in jail.
Society (both here and in the US I believe) seems to think that for most or at least many crimes a person is entitled to a chance to carry on with their lives after they have served their time and paid their debt to society. It is wrong to brush all sex offenders with the same brush and to pretend all of them are ticking time bombs ready to strike again at the next opportunity. Because that's nowhere near the situation. It is not up to the public to determine who might or might not commit a crime in the future and to take ‘pre-emptive’ action accordingly. Especially when they are programmed and driven by the tabloid press and have all the judgemental skills of a drunk baboon.
I have a serious issue with race-related crimes. I think they are every bit as disgusting (if not more) than child abuse. So can I go round the homes of people who have served time for racial crimes in the past and beat them to death? At the end of the day, once a racist always a racist right? We would not want that scum to hurt anyone else again because of the colour of their skin...
Shouldn't the parents be protecting their children anyway?
So what do you want then, that all criminal should be locked up for life, just in case they re-offend?
You cannot hold someone in prison based on what they might do in the future.
Because children get abused because parents dont know there is a peodophile in the area.
But your point is valid in my opinion too. I cant make up my mind wether I agree with the law or not.
I would suspect that many parents are doing more harm to their kids by just keeping them inside all the time because they feel there are big roaming packs of evil scum outside their door.
There has been and probably always will be a VERY slight risk to children from abusers they dont know. But this has to be balanced against childrens right to actualy have fun and play, the risks of underactivity in kids are very real and could well cause them massive health problems.
It really is scary how easily people can treat others as though they were inhuman because of where they come from or what they do. ALL people regardless of actions deserve to be treated with some respect.
It really is a short step from "rounding them up" as you so elequently put to the type of mass genocide that has happened in so many countries. Once we dont see 'those evil bastards' as humans it becomes all too easy to treat them truely like "scum" and then it is us who have become evil.
And unless we want to tag every child in the UK and make sure offenders are nowhere near them, the tagging is rather pointless.
On the other hand perhaps we should tag every child in the UK, and every sex offender. We should also fit them with electric pads to control their movements and watch them at home through a computer screen, controlling them with a joystick.
It would look like this:
*prepares for onslaught from virtual mob*
Do we let children run across the roads then?
Or do we teach them to "stop, look and listen"?
As a parent I try to protect my children from various dangers, what make this one so different?